reversing the judgement of the federal court below “with directions to remand to the state court” because “the citizenship of the parties at the commencement of the actions, as well as at the time the petitions for removal were filed, was not sufficiently shown”
How later courts described this case
- reversing the judgement of the federal court below “with directions to remand to the state court” because “the citizenship of the parties at the commencement of the actions, as well as at the time the petitions for removal were filed, was not sufficiently shown”
- reversing the judgment of the federal court below “with directions to remand to the state court” because “the citizenship of the parties at the commencement of the actions, as well as at the time the petitions for removal were filed, was not sufficiently shown”
- reversing the judgment of the court below “with directions to remand to the state court” because “the citizenship of the parties at the commencement of the actions, as well as at the time the petitions for removal were filed, was not sufficiently shown”
- where no diversity existed at time of removal, state court jurisdiction was not divested and case was remanded
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*34
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller
delivered the opinion of the court.
The original action and that of intervention and third opposition therein were brought in the Civil .District Court for the parish of Orleans, Louisiana, and petitions filed for their removal into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, upon the ground of the diverse citizenship of the parties. The cause was thereupon docketed and tried in the Circuit Court by the judge thereof, on stipulation according to the statute, and upon his findings judgment was rendered and writs of error were prosecuted to this court.
It appears from the record that the citizenship of the parties at the commencement of the actions, as well as at the time the petitions for removal were filed, was not sufficiently shown, and that therefore the jurisdiction of the state court was never divested.
Stevens
v.
Nichols,
130 U. S. 230 . This being so, the deféct cannot be cured by amendment.
Crehore
v.
Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Co.,
131 U. S. 240 .
We are compelled to reverse the judgment, at the costs, however, of the respective plaintiffs in error, and remit the cause to the Circuit Count, with directions to remanid to the state count. Ordered accordingly.